If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The same can be said about everything. Numbers look large, but they are tiny percentages. And we are only talking about the US to boot

Treating water is no more a medical necessity than a flu shot is . 99.+% of normal healthy people will be just fine without it, even if get sick. Post exposure treatment is also common and effective in US too
Is it prudent? Maybe. But that is different than being necessity. A necessity is something that is required.

I have heard of nobody in modern US times dieing from not treating Backcountry water.

Flu kills tens of thousands Americans every year. It's no picnic for most people who get it and live. If Slate were a peer reviewed medical journal I might pay attention.

...
Treating water is no more a medical necessity than a flu shot is . 99.+% of normal healthy people will be just fine without it, even if get sick. Post exposure treatment is also common and effective in US too
...

Yes, fewer than 1 person in 100 will get influenza but, Influenza accounts for 1.4 deaths in every 100,000 people. In 2012-2013 90% of children who died in the US from influenza were unvaccinated. Influenza and pneumonia rank as a top 10 leading cause of death in the US. The cost of hospitalization for influenza will easily fund an AT thru hike. "Normal, healthy people" die from influenza. These are just a sampling of the facts you are neglecting to consider.

Don't defend omitting water filtration with comparisons to disease prevention through vaccinations. It is ignorant.

Yes, fewer than 1 person in 100 will get influenza but, Influenza accounts for 1.4 deaths in every 100,000 people. In 2012-2013 90% of children who died in the US from influenza were unvaccinated. Influenza and pneumonia rank as a top 10 leading cause of death in the US. The cost of hospitalization for influenza will easily fund an AT thru hike. "Normal, healthy people" die from influenza. These are just a sampling of the facts you are neglecting to consider.

Don't defend omitting water filtration with comparisons to disease prevention through vaccinations. It is ignorant.

As I said, what could filtering water hurt? Takes up too much time for the fast and light types? Too much of a hassle? Just take a break, throw off your pack, squat down and filter your water, enjoy a reststop, rehydrate. What could it hurt?

Rebuttal article

That article is garbage. It’s getting ripped to shreds by microbiologists. The author simply repacked Welch’s baloney again. All, or nearly all, verified giardiasis outbreaks in the backcountry were from water.

There is no data showing hygiene is MORE important in backpacking. Doesn’t exist. Is hygiene important? Sure.

“We have data that there is a risk from backcountry water,” says Yoder. “There certainly are waterborne disease outbreaks—more than twenty that have been reported to CDC—where consumption of water in the backcountry has been linked to illness.”
Jonathan Yoder, MPH, deputy chief of CDC’s Waterborne Disease Prevention Branch.

Yes, fewer than 1 person in 100 will get influenza but, Influenza accounts for 1.4 deaths in every 100,000 people. In 2012-2013 90% of children who died in the US from influenza were unvaccinated. Influenza and pneumonia rank as a top 10 leading cause of death in the US. The cost of hospitalization for influenza will easily fund an AT thru hike. "Normal, healthy people" die from influenza. These are just a sampling of the facts you are neglecting to consider.

Don't defend omitting water filtration with comparisons to disease prevention through vaccinations. It is ignorant.

1.4 deaths per hundred thousand people is a negligible number. Unless you're in that 1.4. automobiles deaths are 10-20x that. Smoking is in the 200-500 range per 100,000. Depending on locale.

Flu vaccination only runs about 60% for children and 40% for adults. So without that vaccination maybe the deaths would be ...3 per 100,000. Or... Perhaps many vaccinations go disproportionately to people at risk Elderly, etc.

I've never had a flu shot. Pretty much a risk I'm willing to accept. It's optional. In fact there's no guarantee it's even going to work against strain of flu that will be received in the US during flu season. It's a literal crapshoot. It's made in advance based on strains going around another part of the world.

So you argue for flu vaccinations, nothing in your argument is compelling data that says that they are a requirement or a medical necessity. Because they are not.

Last edited by MuddyWaters; 02-09-2018 at 21:41.

"Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

.........Flu vaccination only runs about 60% for children and 40% for adults. So without that vaccination maybe the deaths would be ...3 per 100,000. Or..

You are ignoring the fact that flu makes you miserable for 2 weeks, can be (and often is) transmitted to family members, co-workers etc and makes them miserable for 2 weeks as well and just focusing on mortality. This seems to be a common thread in your posts. Basically if you don't die from giardia then it's no big deal even though you will be miserable and likely need to get off trail for treatment. Lyme's doesn't kill so I guess according to your yardstick it is no big deal and nothing to worry about.

You are ignoring the fact that flu makes you miserable for 2 weeks, can be (and often is) transmitted to family members, co-workers etc and makes them miserable for 2 weeks as well and just focusing on mortality. This seems to be a common thread in your posts. Basically if you don't die from giardia then it's no big deal even though you will be miserable and likely need to get off trail for treatment. Lyme's doesn't kill so I guess according to your yardstick it is no big deal and nothing to worry about.

No the point is how you define something as being
" medically necessary".

I don't put diarrhea or avoiding the flu in the medically necessary category. There's a few long-term effects or mortality from them. And post-exposure treatment is excellent.

That's completely separate from being a good preventative idea. But some people can't make the distinction.

Don't treat your water you might get the craps but you'll be fine. Don't get a flu shot guess what you're still going to be fine

Last edited by MuddyWaters; 02-09-2018 at 22:03.

"Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

No the point is how you define something as being
" medically necessary".

I don't put diarrhea or avoiding the flu in the medically necessary category. There's a few long-term effects or mortality from them. And post-exposure treatment is excellent.

That's completely separate from being a good preventative idea. But some people can't make the distinction.

Don't treat your water you might get the craps but you'll be fine. Don't get a flu shot guess what you're still going to be fine

You and I have a different idea of fine. In your mind what doesn't kill you is OK because eventually you will survive no matter how sick you get, how disabled you are for a period a time and how it effects those around you. In other words no big deal because you didn't die. I think you are hung up on mortality and forgetting about morbidity like it is of no consequence. Good for an argument but fails a reality check.

No the point is how you define something as being
" medically necessary".

I don't put diarrhea or avoiding the flu in the medically necessary category. There's a few long-term effects or mortality from them. And post-exposure treatment is excellent.

That's completely separate from being a good preventative idea. But some people can't make the distinction.

Don't treat your water you might get the craps but you'll be fine. Don't get a flu shot guess what you're still going to be fine

Unless you aren't going to be fine and die, which is an annoyance.

By this rationale, it's not medically necessary to set a broken leg as the bone will knit eventually and chances of death are low. Though it may leave a lasting limitation to movement, it is not a medical necessity. Nor would it be medically necessary to avoid hypothermia given the low statistical risk of death, you may get the shivers and diminished mental capacity, but as statistics bear out, you will probably be fine.

The opinion of what is medically necessary obviously varies by individual, education, and experience, however few medical professionals would argue avoiding diarrhea, a broken bone, or hypothermia is not medically necessary. Prevention practices are fairly easy for these things and readily available for those who wish to use or practice them.

If you smoke ,drink alcohol ,eat a typical American diet , have a sedentary lifestyle, or ride in car , you have much far worse things to worry about then getting the flu or making sure you don't get diarrhea from Backcountry water.

But how many people worry about those things?
Much bigger threats to your health and well-being and.... life...., and yet avoiding them doesn't seem to be"medically necessary", now does it?

Does it?

So why is it so freaking important to minimize the risk of other minor risks while giving a pass to larger ones?

Only because it's easier, is the correct answer. Typically irrational human behavior.

However I don't try to eat well, not drink alcohol, not smoke, and run 25 miles a week, lift weights, anda maintain low bodyfat because enjoy doing all those things. I do it because I know those are the most important things to my well-being long-term. I'm constantly told by other people that I look 10 years younger than I am. I've been accused of having good genes. Some are shocked when they hear im 52. They don't realize that everybody else is just in such horrible condition that they've adjusted their expectations for people down, way down.

I always treat my water. But I won't hesitate to not treat it if necessary .

Last edited by MuddyWaters; 02-10-2018 at 07:54.

"Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

If one was to look at death rate from prescription drug overrdose, you'd conclude that staying away from Dr prescribed medicine, might be one of the most life enhancing things you could do. Far higher than risk of flu....

"Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

This thread is borderline stupid! I'm assuming we're all old enough and hopefully smart enough to make our own decisions! However I can't figure how it went from filtering water to condemning the flu shot or prescription meds! Sure some people have reactions to the flu shot and some die from prescription drug but the drugs are usually pain meds that some people need for pain and some that just like the way it makes them feel. As for myself I will continue to filter all water, get my flu shot every year and take the meds I need to continue living.